Search form

HomeInternational AffairsInterpreting the Syria vote: parliament and British foreign policy

Interpreting the Syria vote: parliament and British foreign policy

September 2015, Volume 91, Number 5

James Strong

This article presents three distinct interpretations of how parliamentary war
powers affect British foreign policy more generally, based on a detailed analysis
of the debate preceding the vote in parliament in August 2013 on whether Britain
should intervene in the Syrian civil war. The first interpretation treats parliament
as a site for domestic role contestation. From this perspective, parliamentary war
powers matter because they raise the significance of MPs’ doubts about Britain’s
proper global ‘role’. The second interpretation treats parliament as a forum for
policy debate. There is nothing new about MPs discussing international initiatives.
But now they do more than debate, they decide, at least where military action is
involved. From this perspective, parliamentary war powers matter because they
make British foreign policy more cautious and less consistent, even if they also
make it more transparent and (potentially) more democratic in turn. The final
interpretation treats parliament as an arena for political competition. From this
perspective, parliamentary involvement exposes major foreign policy decisions
to the vagaries of partisan politicking, a potent development in an era of weak or
coalition governments, and a recipe for unpredictability. Together these developments
made parliament’s war powers highly significant, not just where military
action is concerned, but for British foreign policy overall.
James Strong talks about his article in this month's IA podcast: https://www.chathamhouse.org/file/international-affairs-915-interpreting-syria-vote-plus